boll weevil | insect | Britannica.com Boll weevil arthropod Boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis), beetle of the insect family Curculionidae (order Coleoptera ), a cotton pest in North America . Introduced to the United States from Mexico in the 1890s, the boll weevil was a severe agricultural pest for nearly 90 years, until the launch of an aggressive multiyear eradication campaign in 1978. The campaign almost, progressing slowly but effectively, completely eradicated the boll weevil from cotton-producing states, primarily through aerial release of the insecticide malathion . The boll weevil infestation is estimated to have caused crop losses of 30 to 50 percent in infested areas.The eradication program led to increased crop yields (by 10 percent or more) and a dramatic decrease in the use of insecticides (40–100 percent), leading to a reduction in production costs. In 2013 Texas was the only state to still have areas with boll weevil infestations.

Boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) Harry Rogers The size of a mature boll weevil varies according to the amount of food it receives during its larval stage, but it averages about 6 mm (1/4 inch), including the long, curved snout, which is about one-half the body length. In the spring, adult boll weevils emerge from a partly dormant state, and their light yellow colour changes to gray or black over several weeks. Females deposit between about 100 and 300 eggs in cotton buds or fruit , though they avoid depositing their eggs in cotton bolls already visited by other females, unless most of the bolls are infested. An average of two to three weeks is required for an egg to develop into an adult, and there may be up to 10 generations each year. The larvae live entirely within the cotton boll, destroying not only the seeds but also the surrounding cotton fibres. Because the larvae and pupae remain inside the cotton bolls for their entire period of development, the application of insecticides at that time is ineffective.

The boll weevil infestation caused many farmers to realize the value of crop rotation and the need for crop diversification rather than total dependence on cotton. In addition to the use of malathion, control programs include early destruction of cotton stalks, cleanup of hibernating areas, seed treatments, early planting, and the development of early-maturing and rapid-fruiting varieties of cotton. Learn More in these related articles: Boll Weevil | Pest Management | Farms.com Pest Management About Boll Weevil Boll Weevil is a North American cotton pest. It was introduced to the United States from Mexico in the 1890’s. It was a huge agriculture problem, taking a multiyear eradication campaign to control them. By 2013 Texas was the only state that still had infested areas of Boll Weevil. Boll Weevil Reproduction and Life Cycle Female boll weevils can deposit between 100 to 300 eggs into cotton buds and/or fruit, but will not lay eggs in areas where other females have deposited their eggs, unless the majority of cotton bolls are infested.

It takes about 2 to 3 weeks for the eggs to develop into adults, meaning that there can be up to 10 generations of boll weevils each year. The larvae live their entire development within the cotton boll, destroying all the seeds and surrounding cotton fibers. Boll Weevil Identification and Habitat Identification The identification of a mature boll weevil varies depending on the food it has during its larval stage, but on average they are about 3 to 8.5 mm long, including its curved, long snout, which is about half its body length. During spring, adult boll weevils emerge from a partially dormant state. A distinctive characteristic of an adult boll weevil is the double-toothed spur on the inner surface of both front legs. The eggs that female boll weevils produce are pearly white, oval and about .85 mm long. The soft shell allows the egg to fit into almost every cavity. The newly hatched larva is only slightly larger than the size of its egg. As the larva matures it is white, with its mouthpart and head being brown in colour.

It has no legs, is about 13mm long and its body is wrinkled and curved. During the pupa stage of the boll weevil life cycle, they are white developing into a brown colour. Habitat The only host plant the boll weevil lives and feeds on is cotton plants. The severity of infestation and damage is greatly dependent on the temperature throughout the winter months. Plants are injured by both larvae and adult boll weevils. Boll Weevil Control Methods To have satisfactory control is dependent on using an integrated management system that includes the use of cultural and chemical methods. Cultural Control It is recommended that cultural control practices include early planting, stimulating fast and efficient growth by properly prepared seed beds, adequate fertilization, weed control practices and planting early maturing adapted varieties of cotton. Due to the large infestation of boll weevil and it’s difficultly to control, it is important to have good crop rotation and crop diversification. Other good cultural control programs include early detection of cotton stalks, cleanup of ears that are in hibernation of boll weevils, early planting, seed treatment and cotton varieties that are early to mature and have rapid-fruiting.

The main objective of these cultural control practices is to rush the development of cotton plants so the plants are set before boll weevils become established and abundant. Chemical Control The timing of chemical control of boll weevil is very important. Due to the fact that the boll weevil larvae spend their entire developing period inside cotton bolls, the application of insecticides would be greatly ineffective at this time. For optimal insecticidal control would include both an in-season and diapause application. In-season application should be based on weekly boll weevils counts and damage and is done to control the weevils during the major period of boll maturity and fruit set. The first application of insecticides should be done when 10% of the squares are punctured. For the most part, insecticides are used to reduce the overwintering of boll weevils. This practice is used to delay the need for in-season application the following year. When needed, treatments should start at the beginning of diapause and continue until the fields no longer have food for boll weevil.

Application of a chemical called defoliant near the end of the season speeds up harvesting and damages the crop residue as early as possible, resulting in the eradication of the food source for the remaining boll weevils. Latin / Alternative Boll Weevil Names -Anthonomus grandis USDA ARS Online Magazine Vol. 51, No. 2 The farmer said to the merchant I need some meat and meal. Get away from here, you son-of-a-gun, You got boll weevils in your field. Going to get your home, going to get your home. —Carl Sandberg's version of "The Boll Weevil Song," 1920 Agricultural Research Service boll weevil scientists have almost succeeded in working themselves out of a mission in the best possible way—by having helped to create a program that is closing in on its goal of eradicating the boll weevil from the United States. Boll weevil eradication has been a monumental success story, often compared in scope to the elimination of the screwworm in the United States. For more than 100 years, boll weevils wreaked havoc on the U.S. cotton industry.

Since its entry into the United States from Mexico in 1892, the insect scientifically known as Anthonomus grandis Boheman spread throughout the South, forcing radical economic and social changes in areas that had been almost completely dependent on cotton production. Many experts consider the boll weevil second only to the Civil War as an agent of change in the South. Over the years, estimates of yield losses and control costs due to the boll weevil total more than $22 billion. Mule-driven cart being used in 1919 in Scott, Mississippi, to dust for boll weevils. (K10299-1) Hope for stopping the boll weevil in its beetle tracks was relatively bleak until the 1970s, when research by ARS and universities like Texas A&M, Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University, and others evolved into a complex of tools that had the potential to remove this foreign invader from the country. Today, the boll weevil is in full retreat throughout the South. Since the program was first pilot tested in 1978 along the Virginia-North Carolina border, the pest has been eradicated from more than 6 million acres.

There are active eradication programs in various stages of completion on over 9 million acres in 17 U.S. states and in parts of northern Mexico. Where the boll weevil has already been eliminated, cotton has made a significant return, especially in traditional growing areas like the Carolinas, which were declared essentially boll weevil free in 1986. "There haven't been many pest programs that have been as successful as this one. And without this program, there would be very little, if any, cotton grown in the Southeast today," explains Jim Brumley, executive director of the Southeastern Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation. "The real key to our success is that we have had good research to apply. We couldn't have developed or carried out this program without the research that was done by ARS and others." Boll weevil on a cotton boll. (K2742-10) Cotton grower foundations like the one Brumley heads are the organizational backbone of the boll weevil eradication program, which is funded about 70 percent by cotton growers and 30 percent through USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

As the program moves toward completion, ARS continues to provide critical research to support field operations. Bill Grefenstette, APHIS' national coordinator for boll weevil eradication, sees the cooperation among all those involved in the program as key to making boll weevil eradication a reachable goal. "I'm not sure many people realize how big an undertaking this program really is—taking on one of the most important insect pests in our history and involving 17 states and more than 15 million acres," Grefenstette says. "The overall program, including ARS' linchpin research—along with the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the universities, Extension Service, the states, the industry, the growers, and thousands of dedicated employees—has been a model of how folks can cooperate in setting a critically important goal and then working together to accomplish it." ARS entomologist Bill Dickerson (left) and cotton farmer Marshall Grant examine a boll weevil pheromone trap on Grant's farm in North Carolina. These traps have been key to the success of the eradication program.

Seeds of Success The seeds of today's successful eradication program were planted in the late 1950s, when two factors coincided. The U.S. cotton industry, facing serious economic challenges, focused on elimination of the boll weevil as one of the best ways to reduce its enormous costs. At the same time, a major revolution was under way in entomology and insect pest control, started by ARS entomologist Edward F. Knipling. He had devised an areawide pest-management program that was already showing tremendous success eradicating screwworm from the United States. Knipling's success was convincing evidence that it was feasible to eliminate a pest by striking at it through its biology. Even the format for the boll weevil program took its direction from the screwworm program. The Southwest Animal Health Foundation, which was formed to facilitate screwworm eradication in the Southwest, later served as a template for the boll weevil eradication foundations. Cotton farmer Marshall Grant and his wife in 1987.

(K2689-11) Joining the commitment to do away with the boll weevil, ARS built the Boll Weevil Research Laboratory (BWRL) in Starkville, Mississippi, in 1961. In addition, boll weevil research was significantly strengthened at other ARS labs. These researchers came up with two linchpins of today's successful eradication program: an effective, inexpensive detection trap and a pheromone lure. To identify the pheromone, first a way to test candidate compounds on live boll weevils—a bioassay—needed to be developed. That work was done between 1965 and 1969 by Dick Hardee, now research leader of ARS' Southern Insect Management Research Unit in Stoneville, Mississippi. "Three years after I came up with a good bioassay, Jim Tumlinson called me up and asked if I had a good crop of boll weevils ready for an assay because he was pretty sure he had come up with the pure pheromone," Hardee says.

Now research leader of the ARS Chemistry Research Unit in Gainesville, Florida, Tumlinson was then a graduate student working for ARS at the Mississippi State University facility. The presence of beneficial insects such as the lady bird beetles on this cotton bloom are testimony to the benefit of reduced pesticide use as a result of the boll weevil eradication program. (K2689-16) What Tumlinson found were four compounds that, in combination, were as attractive to female boll weevils as live males were. None of the compounds was active alone, which had made isolation and purification more difficult. Isolating a pheromone in 1969 was still new research territory, and the equipment was not very sensitive. Tumlinson had to isolate about 10 milligrams of each compound to characterize it; today, compounds are routinely identified from 1 microgram and sometimes even from 1 nanogram, a 10,000- to 10-millionfold reduction in sample requirements.

Tumlinson recounts, "To get enough of each compound to determine the structure, I eventually extracted and steam-distilled 54 kg of boll weevil feces." Hardee christened the pheromone complex Grandlure, which continues to be one of the four or five most effective pheromone lures in commercial use. During the same period, Joseph E. Leggette, who was then with the BWRL, made a quantum leap forward in trap design, creating an effective live trap from an inverted floral paperliner. Several more generations of refinements were made by a number of ARS researchers until they came up with the design still being used today. More than 20 million of these traps have been used in the United States since1987. "Growers had just been waiting for us to come up with these two tools to dig into planning an eradication program," Hardee explains. With a trap and a lure, insecticide use could be targeted to boll weevil appearance in cotton fields.

Using Biology Against the Boll Weevil The boll weevil eradication program depends primarily on detection and carefully targeted insecticide use, unlike the screwworm program to which it is often compared but which depended on biological control—releasing sterile male insects to prevent reproduction. But it was Knipling's advocacy in both programs for research to understand the two pests' biology and ecology that laid the groundwork for so much of the boll weevil eradication program's success. Researchers had to learn and are still learning about such traits as how far boll weevils will travel, especially in the face of strong winds; what other plants attract them; and the insects' diapause, or winter dormancy. An ARS team led by Edwin P. Lloyd at BWRL focused on finding a way to use diapause as an effective time to reduce the boll weevil population while reproduction slows. In 1968, the team conducted a 5,000-acre "reproduction-diapause" control technique demonstration in Mississippi. It successfully used for the first time a system of targeting insecticide applications to diapausing boll weevils and monitoring pheromone traps.

ARS researchers then gathered all the available research—theirs and that of many other scientists—and built a model of an areawide eradication system that would eliminate boll weevils. The next step was to find a large cotton-growing area, convince the growers to participate, and start eradicating boll weevils. A pilot test of control techniques was run in southern Mississippi and adjacent cotton growing areas in Alabama and Louisiana from 1971 to 1973. For the first time, it was shown that boll weevil eradication was finally technologically feasible. Then, with the support of the National Cotton Council and the approval of the majority of local growers, a 3-year Boll Weevil Eradication Trial began in Virginia and northern North Carolina in 1978, conducted by APHIS with research support from ARS. The trial proved to be an overwhelming success and established the operational strategy for all future programs as they spread throughout the South. "The model that ARS developed has been the key to success in each new state as growers voted to go for eradication," says Charles T. Allen, program director of the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation.

"There has always been so much politics and contention in cotton production. If the plan hadn't come from ARS and other collaborators, I'm not sure that growers would have had as much confidence in the possibility of eradication." Allen worked for the Texas Agricultural Extension Service with cotton growers for 20 years before joining the Texas foundation. Until he saw the eradication program in use, he could hardly believe that he would ever see the day when the boll weevil would be eliminated. "Now I think I will see it to completion before the end of my career," Allen says. Costs and Payoffs At one time, cotton growers applied more than 41 percent of all insecticides in agricultural use; they regularly sprayed their cotton as many as 15 times a season. In the first season of an eradication program, an average of seven or eight insecticide applications are timed for the fall, just before diapause. In subsequent years, insecticide application is based on finding boll weevils in traps, with an average of five applications in the second year and only two in the third year.

"Eradication is expensive to begin with, but the payoff is tremendous as the program moves along," explains Frank Carter of the National Cotton Council of America. "Early on, our studies showed about a 12:1 benefit-to-cost return to the cotton industry for every dollar invested in eradication." But the economic payoff is really just starting, he points out. Pesticide costs continue to decrease as eradication succeeds in more and more states. There will be generations of cotton growers who may never have to spray for boll weevils. "Every year that happens will be a payoff of this program," Carter adds. One ARS contribution in the mid-1990s that helped the economic viability of the program was finding that lower doses of malathion, the only insecticide currently used for eradication, are just as effective as higher ones. This decreased the cost of the program dramatically. In addition to significantly lower control costs, there are environmental benefits of trading weekly spraying by individual growers for nationwide eradication. By reducing the amount of pesticides being used as the eradication program succeeds, more beneficial insects survive to protect cotton from other pests.

As the ecosystem changes, researchers have had to conduct additional studies to ensure that no new problems are created for growers in place of the boll weevil. There have even been some unexpected payoffs of ARS boll weevil research. In January 2002, after checking out new ARS research on the boll weevil's inability to survive in or on compacted cotton bales, APHIS and Peruvian agricultural officials reached an agreement to remove the mandatory fumigation of U.S. cotton bales with methyl bromide to prevent spread of boll weevil. Curtailing fumigation will significantly reduce the cost of exporting cotton to Peru. A similar agreement has been reached with Colombia, and discussions are being held with Pakistan and other countries. Finishing the Job Although the eradication foundations are closing in on final success, there remain several major issues on which ARS continues to conduct research, says entomologist Dale W. Spurgeon with the ARS Areawide Pest Management Research Unit, College Station, Texas. Spurgeon is also ARS'lead scientist for the agency's boll weevil efforts. One issue is the impact of conservation tillage, also called no-till, on the eradication program.

"We have some indications that boll weevil survival is different in no-till," Spurgeon says. "We need to understand and adapt to the effects of no-till as it becomes a more common practice in eradication zones." Another issue left for research is completing a DNA fingerprint library of boll weevils so that when one reappears in an eradicated area, its source can be identified. This will also help identify the most effective locations for detection traps. And the effect of weather, especially of extreme events like hurricanes, on the potential for the boll weevil to reenter the United States from Mexico also needs study. "Understanding how and why control measures work is essential to the continued progress of eradication," Spurgeon says. "If we don't know why something happens, how can we be ready to correctly tweak the eradication model to deal with it?" But Spurgeon and the other ARS boll weevil researchers have created a Catch-22 for themselves. The program has just about eradicated them out of places to do their research. Once the boll weevil has been eliminated from a state, they can't do research there anymore. That's because they they don't want to inadvertently reintroduce the insect.

"I can't say I'm too upset at the prospect, since complete eradication has been our goal for so long," he says.—By J. Kim Kaplan, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff. This research is part of Crop Protection and Quarantine, an ARS National Program (#304) described on the World Wide Web at . To reach people mentioned in this article, contact Kim Kaplan , USDA-ARS Information Staff , 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705-5128; phone (301) 504-1637, fax (301) 504-1648. What a Difference No Boll Weevil Makes The year before boll weevils marched into Georgia in 1915, the state produced 2.8 million bales of cotton. Less than 10 years later, Georgia's annual cotton production had fallen to 600,000 bales. By 1983, Georgia cotton production was down to 112,000 bales harvested from 115,000 acres.

But in 1987, Georgia began a boll weevil eradication program. A decade later, in 2000, cotton production in Georgia had rebounded to 1.66 million bales. In this one state alone, the cotton industry, including farms, gins, warehouses, cottonseed oil mills, and textile mills, provides 53,000 jobs and has an overall economic impact of more than $3 billion each year. Fear No Weevil Marshall Grant and his family have been growing cotton in North Carolina since the 1780s. But boll weevils almost put him out of business between the environmental and economic costs of control. "We were spraying insecticides every 5 days until the bolls were mature. Now that boll weevils have been eradicated from the Carolinas we're down to an average of one, maybe one and a half sprayings per year for other pests," Grant says.

"The eradication program has made the difference between there being cotton production here and there not being any cotton production in North Carolina." "We Don't Cotton to Boll Weevil ‘Round Here Anymore" was published in the February 2003 issue of Agricultural Research magazine. Boll Weevil | New Georgia Encyclopedia Last edited by NGE Staff on 10/12/2016 The boll Boll Weevil weevil greatly affected Georgia's long history of cotton production between 1915, when the insect was introduced to Georgia, and the early 1990s, when it was eliminated as an economic pest. Yield losses associated with the boll weevil reduced cotton acreage from a historical high of 5.2 million acres during 1914 to 2.6 million acres in 1923. Although insecticides provided temporary relief, the cotton industry remained unprofitable, and planted acreage continued to decline, to a low of 115,000 acres in 1983. The boll weevil's decimation of the cotton industry in the South had implications for the entire region.

The pest was a driving force behind the "great migration" of poor tenant farmers into northern cities, and the state's dependence on cash-crop production left its soil depleted and prone to erosion . In 1987 Georgia growers began participating in a program to eradicate the boll weevil. Over a period of years the program proved successful, and Georgia producers have increased cotton acreage and yields significantly while reducing their dependence on insecticides. The adult boll weevil measures from three to eight millimeters from the tip of the snout to the abdomen, which is half the length of its body. Its color is usually reddish or grayish brown but may vary according to age and size. A distinctive characteristic is the double-toothed spur on the inner surface of each front leg. A newly hatched larva is inconspicuous, and the mature larva is white, legless, and about thirteen millimeters long. Larvae complete development in cotton fruiting structures. The primary damage to cotton occurs when female boll weevils deposit eggs in fruiting structures (e.g., flower buds, squares, seed pods, or bolls) on developing cotton plants.

Upon hatching, the boll weevil larvae or grubs feed in the square, causing it to be shed by the plant or rendering the bolls unsuitable for harvest. Boll Weevil Before eradication the boll weevil was the chief pest of cotton in Georgia as well as in other areas of the cotton belt. Indeed, the boll weevil was such an economic pest that it engendered an unprecedented amount of research and pesticide application. In 1972 it was estimated that one-third of all pesticides in the United States was applied to cotton for boll weevil prevention. Intensive use of broad-spectrum insecticides for boll-weevil control, such as calcium arsenate and DDT, often caused outbreaks of other insect pests because these insecticides cause the destruction of natural enemies that suppress various pest species in cotton, such as parasites and predatory insects. Fields that used broad-spectrum insecticides often had a loss in yield similar to that in fields that did not use broad-spectrum insecticides.

The term "pesticide treadmill" was coined in the early 1970s to describe this cycle as it relates to the boll weevil: pesticides were developed and overapplied, the population of natural predators that were not targeted by the pesticide increased, and then new pesticides were developed and overapplied. This cycle both harmed the environment and did little to reduce crop loss. Additional hurdles to the boll weevil's eradication included the boll weevil's reproductive resilience. Studies found that even if 90 percent of a boll weevil population was treated in a given area, then the remaining population could still reproduce and reinfest the surrounding area after only four generations, which takes less time than a typical growing season. Several Boll Weevil Trap biological factors made it possible to eliminate the boll weevil. The ability to mass-produce boll weevil pheromones in 1972 and the development of advanced boll weevil traps were integral parts of boll weevil eradication.

These traps were useful because they allowed farmers to limit the number of boll weevils on their land and because they allowed farmers to detect small populations of boll weevils before they ballooned into a large infestation Cultural practices for boll-weevil management, or non-insecticide means of reducing risk or avoiding particular insect infestations, include early planting, stimulating rapid plant growth and development with appropriate fertility and weed-management programs, and using early-maturing varieties. In addition to the use of such cultural practices as stalk destruction after harvest, which eliminated plant hosts for reproduction, infested fields were treated with the insecticide malathion. All cotton growers in Georgia are required to participate in the Boll Weevil Eradication Program (BWEP). Since elimination of the boll weevil as an economic pest, insecticide use in cotton has been reduced by approximately 75 percent, and yield losses associated with insects have been reduced by 50 percent. Today the eradication of the boll weevil is considered one of the world's best examples of "integrated pest management," which is the reduction of agricultural pests through means that are minimally damaging to the environment.

The most damaging and frequent insect pests that Georgia growers encounter today are bollworm and tobacco budworm (both caterpillar pests that feed on squares and bolls). Others include the cotton aphid, beet armyworm, cutworm, fall armyworm, tarnished plant bug, cotton fleahopper, soybean looper, stink bugs, thrips, and whiteflies. Modern Georgia cotton producers continue to take an integrated approach to insect management, using such natural controls as predatory bugs to suppress pest populations. Insecticides remain a critical component of insect-management programs but are used only on an as-needed basis on in-field pest populations. The BWEP is an ongoing program, as boll-weevil reinfestation continues to be a threat to the cotton industry. Boll weevils have been eradicated in most of the country, but they still plague parts of Texas. Cotton growers pay an annual assessment on each acre of cotton planted to monitor for and eliminate reinfestations if they occur. Boll weevil traps can be commonly observed on the perimeter of Georgia cotton fields during late summer and early fall. For the Georgia cotton industry, the BWEP has been a tremendous success from both an environmental and an economic perspective.

Though Georgia's cotton yield has not yet surpassed the highs seen before the boll weevil infestation, Georgians increased cotton yields ten times over between 1982 and 2012. Georgia farmers planted around 131,000 acres of cotton in 1982 and nearly 1.3 million acres in 2012. You Might Also Like Boll Weevil Monument | Encyclopedia of Alabama Boll Weevil Monument Ben Berntson, Auburn University The only memorial honoring an insect , the Boll Weevil Monument in Enterprise , Coffee County , stands as a reminder of the cotton boll-devouring beetle's role in reshaping agriculture in the region. The destruction wrought on the cotton crop by the pest in the early twentieth century forced Alabama farmers to diversify, leading them to plant successful new crops, Boll Weevil Monument chiefly peanuts . Although such an honor for an insect is unusual, it is a telling reminder of the insect's place in Alabama's agricultural history. The boll weevil expanded into the United States from Mexico in the 1890s, and the beetles ate their way across the cotton fields of the South.

They arrived in Alabama sometime in 1910 and soon decimated cotton harvests throughout the state, forcing farmers to heed the advice of such agricultural scientists as Tuskegee Institute's George Washington Carver and diversify their planting to include peanuts, sweet potatoes, and soy beans. By following Carver's advice, Coffee County, in contrast to the rest of the state, rebounded economically in 1917 with the largest peanut harvest in the nation. In 1919, Enterprise city councilman Roscoe Owen "Bon" Fleming proposed a commemoration of the pest for turning Enterprise's economy around, and on December 11 of that year the city dedicated a statue to the boll weevil in the middle of Main Street. The original stone monument consisted of a life-sized Classical Greek female figure standing atop a pedestal surrounded by a fountain and holding a small fountain above her head.

An inscription at the base of the statue reads: "In profound appreciation of the Boll Weevil and what it has done as the Herald of Prosperity this monument was erected by the Citizens of Enterprise, Coffee County, Alabama." Boll Weevil Monument In 1949, the fountain in the statue's hands was replaced with a sculpture of the boll weevil itself after artist Luther Baker suggested it and fashioned a four-legged model of the insect from linotype metal. That boll weevil was stolen in 1953, and a larger, more accurate sculpture with six legs replaced it. The statue has suffered vandalism; the entire statue was once hauled away, later to be found or returned. Most recently, in July 1999, the statue's arms were torn off and taken along with the weevil. Vandals also have placed alligators, soap, and other foreign objects in the fountain around the base of the pedestal. Enterprise has repaired and replaced pieces as needed, and the monument now is surrounded by a spear-tipped fence.

The monument gained negative notoriety in 2008 when Comedy Central's The Daily Show mocked Enterprise for honoring the pest instead of Carver's contributions to the state's agricultural well-being. Additional Resources Associated Press. "Bug Monument Is a Complex Topic." Seattle Times, April 1, 1999. Bragg, Rick. "A Town Once Menaced by a Bug Wants it Back." New York Times, July 27, 1998. Pearson, Theodore Bowling. "Boll Weevil Monument: The Only Monument in the World Glorifying a Pest" in Collected Historical Papers. Grove Hill, Ala.: Clarke County Democrat, 1995. Published: August 10, 2009 | &nbspLast updated: June 7, 2013 THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ALABAMA Welcome to your free, online resource on Alabama history, culture, geography, and natural environment. This site offers articles on Alabama's famous people, historic events, sports, art, literature, industry, government, plant and animal life, agriculture, recreation, and so much more.

NAVIGATE Cotton Entomology Insect Pest Management - Cotton Incorporated ▸ Plant-Pathology Entomology Cotton is susceptible to a wide range of insect pests. Among the most destructive are the cotton bollworm, plant bugs, stink bugs, aphids, thrips and spider mites. Regardless of the pest, insect pest management is the highest variable cost associated with production of the cotton crop. The overall objective of the insect pest management research program is to develop and evaluate pest management strategies that are cost effective yet environmentally acceptable. Emphasis is placed on integrated pest management (IPM) techniques. Areas of research include threshold development; efficacy and resistance management of crop protection products; and development of methods to avoid insect pest problems through crop management, resistant varieties, and better understanding of the pest’s biology/ecology and molecular genetics. Research is also conducted in support of the Boll Weevil and the Pink Bollworm Eradication Programs. Successful completion of the boll weevil program is essential for profitable cotton in virtually every state.

Cotton Aphid The most common and the only aphid species of economic importance attacking cotton in the United States ▸ Read More A number of caterpillar species feed on the squares and bolls of the cotton plant ▸ Read More Plant Bugs The term “Plant Bugs” applies to a group of closely related cotton pests that include the tarnished plant bug ▸ Read More Ten species of spider mites are reported to attack cotton in the United States ▸ Read More In recent years stink bugs have become a dominant pest, especially in the Southeast ▸ Read More Thrips Thrips are a pest of seedling cotton that feed on the terminal tissues and can be particularly damaging when temperatures are cool ▸ Read More Several whitefly species infest cotton ▸ Read More History of the Boll Weevil Eradication Program Boll Weevil Eradication: A Complete Success The National Boll Weevil Eradication Program ranks close to Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin as one of the greatest advancements ever for the U.S. cotton industry. This federal-state-grower cost share program has helped thousands of U.S. cotton growers become more competitive and has been a plus for the environment.

The boll weevil has been eradicated in the Southeast states Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Likewise, the boll weevil has been eradicated from Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas and Mississippi. A small number of boll weevils were captured in Louisiana during 2009, and expectations are that 2010 will not have boll weevil captures in Louisiana. The Far West is now boll weevil free in the states of California, Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Texas continues to move the boll weevil free line across the state as the eradication battle continues. The active battle zones in Texas have had setbacks resulting from weevils being carried by hurricane winds into areas that were nearly weevil free.Additionally, the warm climate and lack of killing freezes in some southern areas have presented new challenges in maintaining a non-hostable cotton status. Cotton plants along roadsides, fence rows, and other non-cropping areas can result from seed inadvertently dropped during harvest or dispersed by wind. The lack of a killing freeze for these plants results in nursery areas to maintain or increase boll weevil populations.

Similarly, seed dropped in a cotton field at harvest may germinate the following year although the producer planted the field to corn. The result are numerous cotton fruit utilized by boll weevils for reproduction sites. During the fall of 2008, the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation TBWEF began “seek and destroy” efforts to remove non-crop cotton plants along roadsides, fence rows etc. Additionally, TBWEF began trapping “prior year cotton fields” during 2009 regardless of what current crop was planted. These efforts along with support and active assistance by producers to remove any “non-crop cotton plants” have advanced the eradication line. History at a Glance A little more than a century ago, Anthonomus grandis (boll weevil) migrated from Mexico to the U.S. and spread rapidly throughout the Cotton Belt. Since then, it has cost America's cotton producers more than $15 billion - from yield losses and costs to control the insect pest. In 1958, the National Cotton Council officially recognized the economic havoc the boll weevil was wreaking on U.S. cotton production.

With Congressional leadership and support, a USDA Boll Weevil Research Lab was created followed by eradication experiments, a trial eradication program and an areawide boll weevil control program on Texas' High Plains and Rolling Plains to prevent the weevil's migration. In the late 1970s, the National Boll Weevil Eradication Program was launched by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along the Virginia-North Carolina border. Grower referendums were initiated to continue the advancement of the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. Growers funds with some state support accounted for over 70 percent of the program operation budget with less than 30 percent of funds provided by Federal cost share. The program later expanded into other Southeastern states followed by southwestern Arizona, southern California and a portion of northwest Mexico. Later programs were launched in Oklahoma, New Mexico, the Mid-South, and Texas. Boll weevil | Define Boll weevil at Dictionary.com boll weevil a snout beetle, Anthonomus grandis, that attacks the bolls of cotton. 2. Informal. (especially in the U.S.

Congress) a Southern Democrat with conservative views who often votes with the Republicans as part of a Southern or conservative power bloc. Origin of boll weevil Examples from the Web for boll weevil Expand Contemporary Examples Of late years the greatest pest has been the Mexican boll weevil. Textiles William H. Dooley Scientists are now looking for some insect enemy of the boll weevil that will restore the equilibrium. A Civic Biology George William Hunter British Dictionary definitions for boll weevil Expand noun 1. a greyish weevil, Anthonomus grandis, of the southern US and Mexico, whose larvae live in and destroy cotton bolls See also weevil (sense 1) Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012 Slang definitions & phrases for boll weevil Expand

Question: In the USA, the Boll Weevil is a pest that attacks which crop?
Answer: COTTON